Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Carbuncle 0]

ABC news is carrying the headline "Oregon-born gray wolf dies after 'epic' California trek". Is it possible this is a vaccine side-effect? I'm looking to you, @top4718, for an answer. I'm also noticing that Morrisons is out of sandwich spread. Coincidence? You decide.

 

Do your own research.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Carbuncle

[Longcol 600]

15 hours ago, Chekhov said:

There is some logic to this. If the government want to alter our behaviour as regards Covid, in order to either save lives or "protect the NHS" ( I thought they were supposed to protect us ? ), then "encouraging" us to be fitter and/or slimmer and/or stop smoking etc would make far more difference than trying to get people vaccinated against Covid.

You can vaccinate millions in a year as proven by the covid vaccine roll out.

 

Encouraging fitness regimes takes one helluva lot longer to work through to relatively small percentages of the population.

[Longcol 600]

On 23/11/2021 at 13:38, top4718 said:

There's a lot of logic in this, you can't beat natural immunity and letting the virus rip through people who have the best chance of recovery (people under 75) was obviously (with hindsight) the best approach.

The "logic" would have destroyed the NHS.

[nikki-red 308]

6 hours ago, top4718 said:

No one knows Eriksens vaccine status, lets see how many more of these occur in the next few months.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/20/fact-check-christian-eriksen-didnt-receive-covid-19-vaccine/7713275002/

[melthebell 863]

2 hours ago, nikki-red said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/20/fact-check-christian-eriksen-didnt-receive-covid-19-vaccine/7713275002/

You should know by now, Do Tops doesn't like fact checkers, they are part of the conspiracy.

It's not often they back him up, that's why

[Chekhov 488]

8 hours ago, Longcol said:

>>There is some logic to this. If the government want to alter our behaviour as regards Covid, in order to either save lives or "protect the NHS" ( I thought they were supposed to protect us ? ), then "encouraging" us to be fitter and/or slimmer and/or stop smoking etc would make far more difference than trying to get people vaccinated against Covid.<<

 

You can vaccinate millions in a year as proven by the covid vaccine roll out.

Encouraging fitness regimes takes one helluva lot longer to work through to relatively small percentages of the population.

Are you kidding ? ! ?

You seem to be saying that only a relatively small percentage of the population are unfit ! ! !

I also note you did not add "being slimmer" which I did.

Cutting the obesity problem and the lack of fitness in this country would self evidently make far more of a difference to the strain the NHS is under, but don't just take my word for it :

 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2014/09/serious-about-obesity/

Get serious about obesity or bankrupt the NHS

Edited November 25, 2021 by Chekhov

[Chekhov 488]

7 hours ago, Longcol said:

>>There's a lot of logic in this, you can't beat natural immunity and letting the virus rip through people who have the best chance of recovery (people under 75) was obviously (with hindsight) the best approach.<<

 

The "logic" would have destroyed the NHS.

The principle is sound, though 75 is a bit old I'd have thought. You do have to remember that back in early 2020 few people seemefd confident we'd get vaccines of great effectiveness as quickly as we in fact did.

Arguably when this natural herd immunity should have been tried would have been over the summer of 2020 when the NHS is usually under less strain and Covid numbers were down because (at that time, with the original less infectious variant) Covid was more of a seasonal problem. But they couldn't because there were loads of people screaming we should be doing everything, however disproportionate, to try and prevent every possible death. 

 

[top4718 838]

12 hours ago, Longcol said:

The "logic" would have destroyed the NHS.

Sweden's health service seems to have survived.

5 hours ago, melthebell said:

You should know by now, Do Tops doesn't like fact checkers, they are part of the conspiracy.

It's not often they back him up, that's why

There's a multi billion pound industry thriving with Covid and the Vaccines of course fact checkers (like scientists) will find the right answers. The USA Today story has absolutely zero substances, you might as well have took a screen shot of something you've written.

Edited November 25, 2021 by top4718

[top4718 838]

14 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

ABC news is carrying the headline "Oregon-born gray wolf dies after 'epic' California trek". Is it possible this is a vaccine side-effect? I'm looking to you, @top4718, for an answer. I'm also noticing that Morrisons is out of sandwich spread. Coincidence? You decide.

 

Do your own research.

Like I said in an earlier comment I really don't care a jot whether you believe these or not, now you've been coerced into having the thing there's no going back so I'm sure these poor attempts at humour at least give you some crumb of comfort.

 

I'll guarantee one thing though, these "coincidences" will gather pace.

[Carbuncle 0]

10 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Sweden's health service seems to have survived.

As is typical you have not got your facts straight. Sweden did not let it rip. You have consistently mis-stated the policies of the Swedish government. For example, Sweden's state epidemiologist had a 'stay at home' recommendation all the way from March 25th, 2020 until September 28th, 2021. Yes, that's right Sweden tried to reduce the spread through non-pharmaceutical measures. They also, at times, had requirements related to the mask wearing in public spaces - despite what you have repeatedly asserted - although they generally tried to make recommendations rather than impose restrictions. Why can't you get your facts right? Why do you copy-and-paste straight from the covid sceptic sites straight into your brain rather than checking with reliable sources?

[top4718 838]

10 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

As is typical you have not got your facts straight. Sweden did not let it rip. You have consistently mis-stated the policies of the Swedish government. For example, Sweden's state epidemiologist had a 'stay at home' recommendation all the way from March 25th, 2020 until September 28th, 2021. Yes, that's right Sweden tried to reduce the spread through non-pharmaceutical measures. They also, at times, had requirements related to the mask wearing in public spaces - despite what you have repeatedly asserted - although they generally tried to make recommendations rather than impose restrictions. Why can't you get your facts right? Why do you copy-and-paste straight from the covid sceptic sites straight into your brain rather than checking with reliable sources?

Sweden made the elderly/vulnerable a priority and let everything else virtually carry on, who are your "reliable sources"?

[Carbuncle 0]

1 minute ago, top4718 said:

Sweden made the elderly/vulnerable a priority and let everything else virtually carry on, who are your "reliable sources"?

BS. Why do you expect me to provide reliable sources for you when you never do? What are you going to do if I provide reliable sources? Please don't expect me to believe you are going to read them. ... oh I know, you're going to suggest they are part of the massive Worldwide conspiracy theory.